Monday, July 30, 2012

Adam Smith and GDP/GNP Analysis

Evan Soltas, a student at Princeton University, posts on his Blog HERE

“A New Generation of Econ Data?”

“In
the beginning, there was no economics data. Greats like Adam Smith wrote
treatises on political economy in the equivalent of near-total darkness. Later
economists such as Vilfredo Pareto and Alfred Marshall introduced mathematical
foundations, changing the direction of what had been a very qualitative
philosophical endeavor. After the Great Depression, Paul Samuelson and John
Hicks consolidated Keynes' work into the modern field of macroeconomics -- and
they received critical (and I might argue significantly under-appreciated)
support from econometricians and statisticians like Simon Kuznets.”

Comment

I
found this article by Evan Soltas interesting, though my comments are directed at this first
paragraph.

I
am not so sure that Adam Smith and contemporaries wrote “in the equivalent of
near-total darkness”, though I get what he means.

There
were no systematic treatises on political economy on hand; there was quite a
large pamphlet-size literature on economic subjects written in the 17th-18th
centuries, of which Yale (I think) has assembled over 4,000 pieces available
(now) for consultation, most of which were not known to Smith (and probably not known en masse to others. In 1767, Sir John Stuart, a recently
returned Jacobite exile, published his 2-volume, Principles of Political Economy,
which we know Smith had read, but he did not mention it in Wealth Of Nations.* Two further sources can be traced from
Smith. First was Cantillon’s
privately circulated thesis (1735), mentioned by Smith; the other was Turgot’s
more substantial anonymous publication, considered by some scholars to be
previous to WN.**

The
mathematisation of political economy was of mixed blessing. It cleared up the fuzziness of language
at an eventual cost of removing political economy from contact with
reality. Statistics was also a new
subject in the late 18th century (see my history of
statistics: “An Invitation to Statistics”, Wiley, 1984 – Amazon now sells it for 1c [!]).

The
History of economics may be bit like the history of astronomy; both subjects
started with observations melded with a few old concepts; then the concepts took over,
and the real world made to fit the new concepts.

In
the case of astronomy this hindered knowledge as the religious concepts of the
earth and the heavens circulating the sun ruled supreme as the word of God, until ever improving ongoing
observations challenged the concepts, which, once they proved overwhelming, rescued astronomy from rigid religious concepts.

Economics
is going through a stage of the dominance of new concepts, such as theories of homo
Economicus with rational humans making rational choices beautifully accounted
for by pure maths, which had overwhelmed the political economy of Smith's times. Maths has taken over; quantitative work
– including statistics of behaviour and tests of rational concepts in
behavioural games - have kept the debate about the real world alive.

In
this process, Smith’s ideas are still worth studying, provided we stick to what
he was writing and not to how modern ideas have allegedly made them redundant
historically. Take, for example,
Smith’s limited and primitive ideas on productive/unproductive labour. In modern GNP work his distinction is
disregarded as not precise enough.
Yet it keeps rising in modern dialogues. Pure government expenditure does not have the same productive
effect of market expenditure; the former has to be replaced pound for pound
from taxation and borrowing. Market activity reproduces itself pound for pound, plus additional pounds in the form of
profits. Smith was drawing this
distinction which exists though it was not clear enough theoretically for quantification.

Smith
also was inconsistent and the margins were vague.
Government expenditure was not unproductive when it purchases goods and
services from private enterprises.
Take defence expenditures (the first duty of government). Defence suppliers receive revenues from
the government, and reproduce the costs of their defence services – they also make a
profit and pay their suppliers and the wages of their employees to stay in business. The defence departments pay their
soldiers and seamen, which is unproductive in Smith's sense as these forces do not generate a
revenue to cover their costs and the costs of their materials used in
defence, but they consume through markets, adding to local revenues. Much has been written and studied on local defence-sourced multipliers.

Likewise
with his example of consumers spending money on wines and their dinners in
restaurants, hotels and theatre goers, seeking legal advice, and such
like. Consumers of these services do not
reproduce their expenditures – they consume them. However the restaurants, hotels, theatres, puppeteers,
lawyers – even Brothel keepers and the courtesans – are productive in Smith's sense. They receive incomes that reproduce
their costs plus profits.

It
is a muddle, true, as expressed in WN, but the point remains; those activities
that recover their costs plus a profit add to economic activity and those than
do not, do not. These last are the
necessary costs of an economy functioning; those that do recover their costs
plus a profit are the necessary revenues that enable an economy to continue and
to grow. It is not a GNP analysis as shown in the statistics. Smith's distinction is still worth understanding,
as are GNP/GDP statistics, and their derivation.

*Smith in
correspondence to Adam Ferguson.
Stuart made a case for mercantile tariffs and such like, and while Smith
knew him socially, they did not agree (politely). He told Ferguson that he had “confuted” all Stuart’s
arguments in WN without mentioning “his” (Stuart’s) name.

(It was considered
impolite in 18th-19th century literature to criticise
living persons by name – first and last letters with dashes in between were sometimes used instead Smith just left Stuart's name out, perhaps to save embarrassing friend).

* Turgot was a
senior state official in the French King’s service and was near paranoid about anyone mentioning his name in view of the consequences. All printing in France was subject to bureaucratic censorship. Turgot often used aliases and also urged writers not to mention his
authorship ever. From textual evidence,
we know Smith used similar expressions from Turgot’s main published work in
later editions, after the first edition of WN in 1776, and long after passages reproduced
in WN from his Lectures in Jurisprudence, 1762-63. Turgot had many ideas in advance of anybody else though he sometimes appeared to be quasi-Physiocratic.

6 Comments:

I think it's important for Evan to keep separate the ideas of data and empirical "light". As a more empirical economist myself, I'm not discounting the importance of data, but there is other evidence out there and Smith collected together a ton of it.

Malthus is a good example, though, of an early economist that actually did go to great lengths to collect data.

I meant "darkness" when it came to Smith's access, or rather lack thereof, to data.

This is an interesting historical review. Do you have the quote you mentioned about the inferiority of certain labor or purchases / the imperfect substitutability of government expenditure for private expenditure? I would be very much interested in that, and you seem to have a better knowledge of Smith's work than I do.

DanielYour are right! The amount of data in WN is quite extensive, though scattered about liberally. A few pages of columns of data are also included. Some modern economists complain about 'distractions' and 'verbiage' in WN. He took from 1767 to 1773 to write a publishable draft, having started composing WN in1763,, plus another 3 years to 1776, to have it published (he was in London and much taken up with "American affairs' - Hume complained to him about the delay).Gavin

EvanI am in France on holiday and do not have access to my Smith library (I return on Wednesday).The best I can do just now, is to refer to my book, "Adam Smith: a moral philosopher and his political economy" (2nd edition), Chapter 10: "Increasing the fund for productive hands", pages 114-127.This inter alia refers to a quote from WN pages 330-331, Oxford UP edition (Liberty Press). Check that quote and read around it too.It also mentions the most common reading of Smith that it is supposed to refer to the difference between productive goods (tangible) that last some time and 'service' goods that perish instantly they are consumed. This is part of Smith's 'muddled' account, but clearing this up identifies an important distinction, as I mentioned above and in my chapter 10 reference.Glad to oblige.Gavin

EvanI note I did not answer your direct question on imperfect substitutability of public/market expenditures.Loook in Book V of WN under public works. Smith discusses toll roads and the comparative performance of public/private toll provisions. Hr criticises the weaknesses of both, though remember public tollroad raise fees and if they do not cover costs, require more public expenditures each year, plus their losses; but private tolls also reimburse costs plus a profit, which even if inefficient, they reproduce more than their costs each year (and can be sacked).Gavin